In his State of the Union address, the President’s core message was that the US has emerged strong from the twin crises caused by the 2001 terrorist attacks and the 2008 global recession.

And the challenge he posed to Congress on foreign policy is this. Do we want to continue to operate in crisis mode – being fearful, reactive, and prone to overuse military force in ways that exacerbate security problems and contradict basic values? Or can Congress support the President’s efforts to exercise “smart” global leadership and to work closely with other countries to address shared threats and protect the planet?

This choice is particularly stark when deciding what to do about Iran’s nuclear program.

Two years of steady progress

Over the past two years, vigorous multilateral diplomacy has accomplished what could not be done so long as memories of the 1979 hostage crisis made diplomatic isolation, military threats and economic sanctions the only policy options that American leaders thought they could use.

While negotiations with the United States and other world powers are moving forward, Iran has suspended or even reversed its most worrisome nuclear activities, and been more transparent about other aspects of its program.

The President underscored some potential benefits of successful diplomacy. Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms makes the US and its allies more secure. Achieving this through multilateral diplomacy means avoiding war with another Islamic country.

Reaching agreement in principle before world leaders gather in New York later this spring to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is the most important thing that can be done at this point to prevent other countries from making or using nuclear weapons, too.

Obama warned Congress that passing legislation for new sanctions against Iran would not strengthen his hand. On the contrary, it would guarantee the failure of negotiations and go against what the American people want them to do.

“Let me be clear. If this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it.”

Public opinion backs the president - Republicans too

Public opinion research conducted by myself and colleagues at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland (CISSM) substantiates both of these points.

A decision-making simulation done with the Program on Public Consultationshowed that a clear majority of American respondents, including six out of ten Republicans, preferred continued efforts to negotiate a compromise deal that limits Iran’s enrichment, increases transparency, and provides some sanctions relief to the alternative option of ending negotiations and trying to get other countries to impose more sanctions on Iran.

In July 2014 we conducted a joint opinion poll with the University of Tehran Center for Public Opinion Research, where CISSM associate Ebrahim Mohseni is a senior analyst.

This survey also found broad public support among Iranians for potential elements of a deal that are consistent with the principles of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

At the same time, the poll revealed why previous sanctions never persuaded Iran’s leaders to stop enriching uranium, and why threatening additional sanctions is unlikely to get more Iranian concessions.

A near-unanimous majority (94%) of Iranians say that it is essential for Iran to make peaceful use of nuclear energy. Large majorities would oppose dismantling half of Iran’s centrifuge capability (70%) or accepting limits on nuclear research (75%). We found no significant difference depending on political preferences. In fact, those respondents who were more highly educated were more negative towards measures that would treat Iran differently from other NPT members that have promised not to develop nuclear weapons.

Threatening to impose new sanctions now, or in a few months if Iran has not acquiesced to these maximalist demands, weakens the United States' negotiating leverage by stoking Iranian doubts that the President could deliver promised sanctions relief.

Before Republicans won control of the Senate, three-quarters of Iranian respondents already expected that the United States would not lift nuclear-related sanctions even if Iran accepted all US nuclear demands.

Significantly, the small percentage of Iranians who expressed confidence that the United States would reciprocate Iranian cooperation was more willing to accept additional limits and transparency measures. This suggests that providing credible reassurance about sanctions relief could help persuade a majority of Iranians to accept limits on centrifuge numbers and enriched uranium stockpiles for the duration of a comprehensive agreement.

The United States' closest allies in negotiations with Iran have asked Congress not to pass new sanctions legislation. An increasing number of Democrats in Congress now say that it is better to wait and see what type of agreement can be reached with Iran in the next few months.

Some former Republican national security officials, like Brent Scowcroft, have urged Congress to give diplomacy a chance, but it seems that House Speaker John Boehner is not listening.

In a move that directly challenges the President, he has invited Israel’s prime minister to address Congress specifically on the dangers posed by Iran’s nuclear program.

It is worth noting that Benjamin Netanyahu has been more hawkish than his own intelligence agency Mossad, which warned a bipartisan Congressional delegation visiting Israel last week against new sanctions legislation.

The choice for Republican leaders now is whether or not they really want to sabotage the negotiations, against the wishes of the American public and key allies. Doing so would reinforce Iranian suspicions that they are – once again – exploiting international concerns about alleged efforts to build weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for military intervention and regime change.

199 comments:

The American public is not stupid and sees right through the likes of warmongering Boehner, McCain, Cruz and Graham. The Republicans stand for nothing except their personal careers and their owners. The sooner a third party, one that represents the interests of decent US oriented Americans, emerges to put them out of their misery, the better. Aipac owns the Republicans. They say “shit” and the Republicans squat over their hat. Many of the Democrats are not that much better, but a party that steps forward with a US first agenda and shows the likes of Aipac the door, will become the winning party for the US because they represent US interests.

Every administration since Carter has tried, and failed, to reach a diplomatic agreement with Iran.

In the last 6 years Iran went from almost no uranium to now having enough for 2 bombs and another by June. it went from zero plutonium to now build 3 light water reactors that will provide another tract to have a plutonium bomb. they went from not having ballistic missiles to having a fully functioning system.

Yep diplomacy is a great idea. As are sanctions, which Obama has removed most of for nothing.

If you wish to avoid war? using sanctions is diplomacy.

However if you want war?

Continue to appease Iran and do not stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

No, I am more interested in US streets, US roads, US factories and US jobs and secondarily with what is going on in the Americas. I want the Arabians and the Israelis out of the halls of the US Congress. Iranians are not trying to interfere in US politics and cheering working class Americans off to war. Israel and the Saudis have done damage to my people.

As for your assertion that you want Arabians and Israelis out of the halls of the US Congress?

Deuce, it is MY right, as an AMERICAN to lobby MY representative on any topic I choose.

What you are saying about AIPAC and the JEWS is UN-American.

You call us traitors, 5th columnists, indecent for supporting American and Israeli shared values and security.

You want to stop actual other nation's in the halls of the US congress? FINE. Want to have them register as foreign agents? Great!

But you really don't have a CLUE about what AIPAC lobbies for.

Your goose-stepping, scapegoating, libeling of Jews, Zionists and those who support (whether you like it or not, agree or not) the ONLY decent place in the middle east that IS an ally of the USA on an hourly basis.

I would like to see the House of Lords demolished. The grotesque hero worship of dead emperors ended and exchange that so that a man or woman that wants to work, can and for a wage where they can provide for their family s our fathers were able to provide for us.

I would like to see all religious influence put into a museum where it belongs and replace it with science and engineering. I want to so-called conservatives, actually religious reactionaries out of our business and politics.

I want to see the nation state welfare queens off the dole and the money poured away by the Pentagon replaced by poured concrete on infrastructure in US cities.

Everyone also understands that you have been of late entering a new phase of claiming the right to define what a true 'American' is..........

One can' be a member of AIPAC, for instance, like me, and be a 'true American'......even though some of my ancestors have been here surely just as long as yours, and perhaps longer.......coming here in the early 1600's for instance, to Virginia of all places......just like yours....

You and yours are not shelled indiscriminately by a ruthless, murderous terror group funded and supplied by a fanatical islamic nation, Iran.

Bibi and Israel's position that only sanctions, strong sanctions, will bring Iran to the diplomatic table to negotiate an outcome that will be agreeable to the world. The other choice is war.

America has made it clear, as well as France, Germany, Russia, China and England that Iran has no right to get a nuclear bomb and they will not allow it.

Iran has been offered fuel rods for power plants by Russia, as long as the spent fuel rods are removed and not processed into weapons grade material. They have refused.

Iran, unlike Iraq, has numerous reactors and centrifuges both being built and are completed to process and complete the fuel cycle. Iran has now completed it's take over of 4 national capitals in recent years and cause the deaths, with it's partners Syria and Hezbollah) of over 300,000 Syrians and Iraqis. AND created a refugee situation of 11 million people.

You can bitch about Israel and the conga line, the war party but you support Iran (and their proxies)'s destabization of the middle east, the deaths and war they are conducting.

The Chamberlains are those true nitwits who buy into the line that the Iranians are 'fighting for civilization' even though the Iranian leadership starting nearly half a century ago has continually said they wish to wipe the USA off the face of the earth.

There is something oddly Stockholm Syndromean about this strange outlook.

>>However, James’ statistic might not tell the entire story. The A-10s have racked up all of their flight hours in less than three months. The Warthogs could easily become more prolific in the air war against Islamic State in the months ahead.

Over Iraq and Syria, both types of aircraft spend their time almost exclusively backing up friendly soldiers. The Pentagon describes these outings as “close air support” more than 80 percent of the time, according to the spokesperson for Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve.

But just what these flights actually entail is not entirely clear. For one, the planes only drop bombs or fire missiles at the enemy during a quarter of these missions, the same official explained.

In addition, American pilots do not talk directly with Iraqi or Kurdish commanders on the ground during these strikes—at least officially. Despite reports to the contrary, the Pentagon insists American advisers are not actively involved in the fighting.

And Islamic State forces only need to be “in proximity to or in contact with friendly indigenous forces” for a mission to count as close air support, the public affairs officer noted.

“It is sometimes the case that sorties tasked for [close air support] may wind up supporting strikes that look more like interdiction, or vice versa.”

Interdiction is supposed to describe attacking the enemy before they get near your troops. To confuse matters more, the Pentagon labels most of its remaining combat sorties as interdiction, too. So these strikes might not always be as “close” as the moniker otherwise suggests.>>

I'd like someone to explain why we are so concerned, other than for humanitarian reasons, which Quirk has ruled out of court, about ISIS.

It would be wonderful if all the 'Iraqis' suddenly began loving one another as we all do here in the good old US of A but it does seem at this point unlikely. Do we really think we can 'put Iraq back together again, and should we, if we can?

The threat of terrorism? Is that it?

Even Deuce said at one point we have to deal with ISIS.

But why, exactly?

The only reason I can see to do so is the humanitarian reason.

Otherwise it might make as much sense, as Rufus said once some time ago about the entire Middle East,to let them all kill themselves, as long as they leave Clan Rufus alone.

But these days Rufus seems bound and determined to wipe out ISIS to the last man.......

Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

“We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

Even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda. “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” Oren said in the interview.

Let me explain why. Saddam, knew his people an kept it under control. The Jackassery in DC stoked up some bullshit story fed to them by the usual suspects that Iraq had WMDs all over the place. The Neocons had their first agenda to eliminate any potential rival to Holy Israel. The US public was stirred up by 911, a Saudi attack from Saudi financed camps in Afghanistan. Bush, the minor ignoramus decided to attack Iraq. The Viceroy in combat boots and a suit decided it was a good idea to fire the entire Iraqi army and send them home with their guns and no money.

The viceroy, flag on his lapel, head firmly implanted up his starched ass, dismissed the civil service.

We fucked those people up so badly, killed and injured hundreds of thousand and wrecked it taking FUBAR to new heights.

That is why we have to destroy the organization that has its roots in the meddling and misdirection of Carter and Reagan.

(Reuters) - The United States and its coalition partners have launched another round of air strikes against Islamic State, conducting 25 strikes since early Thursday.

In a statement on Friday from the Combined Joint Task Force leading the military operation, officials said 13 air strikes hit in Iraq, including eight near Mosul that struck four Islamic state fighter units and destroyed a variety of militant-owned equipment and infrastructure.

Several Islamic State buildings in Mosul were destroyed as well as one of its bunkers, a heavy weapons system and seven vehicles, among other targets, according to the coalition statement.

Efforts are under way to recapture Mosul, the largest city in a self-declared Islamic State caliphate straddling the border between northern Iraq and eastern Syria. The Wall Street Journal on Thursday reported the United States and Iraq are preparing for an offensive to recapture it by summer.

Islamic State militants took over Mosul in June.

In Syria, the U.S.-led coalition conducted 12 strikes, including 10 near the besieged border town of Kobani that struck seven units of militant fighters, the statement said. An air strike near Al Hasaka destroyed a mobile oil drilling rig.

It's really not that hard. All you have to do is look up the history of the organization, where it came from and why it was formed. To look at where they place their priorities and objectives is also simple, all you have to do is visit their website. To see how they operate, you merely have to follow the line of associate organizations and affiliates such as their 'tax free' charities that spend American taxes 'not paid' to send most (if not all) key politicians and staff as well as other persons of influence on expense paid jaunts to Israel. Heck, you can learn most of what you need to know just by following the headlines in the MSM.

This is not difficult, just a few keystrokes away. Unfortunately, most people (including the brain-dead evangelicals that believe support for Israel is necessary to assure the second coming of Jesus) just don't take the time or effort. They would rather twitter and tweet and post to their Facebook pages.

Sorry Quirk, AIPAC is not a listed as a charity, but you are correct that it is deductible, for Americans to support politicians of their choice , within the law, with donation, just as every other citizen.

AIPAC is a 501C4 corporation, it is a charity.Why in the world, "O"rdure, do you continue to tell lie, after lie, after lie, all of which are very easy to check.

AIPAC has an affiliate called the American Israel Education Foundation that spends money on educational programs, materials and travel to promote AIPAC issues. As a 501(c)(3) organization, contributions made to the American Israel Education Foundation are tax deductible

Through a variety of corporate shells AIPAC evades disclosure of the names of its financial donors and allows donors to avoid paying taxes with its 501C3 'affiliates'.

Nothing illegal, but not what "O"rdure, the disinformation specialist, has told us.

AIPAC TODAY:Back Diplomacy with PressureSHAREAfter a year of negotiations, and generous offers by the P5+1, Iran has not demonstrated a willingness to give up the capability to develop nuclear weapons. Tough pressure brought Iran to negotiations and additional pressure will strengthen America’s bargaining position. It is now essential that Congress take up new bipartisan prospective sanctions legislation to let Tehran know that it will face much more severe pressure if it does not clearly give up the option of developing nuclear weapons. Urge your members of Congress to support diplomacy backed by tough sanction

AND HOW COULD OUR INVALUABLE ALLY RESIST?

Support Security Assistance for IsraelSHAREOn December 13, 2014, Congress approved $3.1 billion in security assistance for Israel as part of the fiscal year 2015 omnibus appropriations bill. The assistance represents the seventh year of a 10-year agreement to provide the Jewish state with the necessary resources to defend itself amid rising threats in the region.

The bill included a total of $619.8 million for U.S.-Israel missile defense programs, with $351 million designated for Iron Dome. The remaining $268.8 million is allocated for cooperative programs, including David’s Sling, Arrow-2 improvements, and Arrow-3.

U.S. security assistance to Israel in the annual foreign aid bill is the most tangible manifestation of American support, especially during a time of tremendous turmoil in the Middle East. American aid is a vital component of U.S. commitments to ensure that the Jewish state maintains its qualitative military edge over its adversaries.

It is also critical that the United States maintain a robust overall foreign aid budget. To preserve America’s safety, security and prosperity, the United States must remain engaged in the world and have the resources to do so successfully. A strong foreign aid budget enables us to support key allies like Israel, pave the way for Washington’s diplomatic efforts, spur our job-creating exports and help prevent unstable areas from becoming breeding grounds for terror.

Then, of course AIPAC has to draw for the Conga Line an easy to understand step by step with the Palestinians:

Key PointsTalks must be direct and bilateral As seen in previous Arab-Israeli peace deals, only direct talks between the two sides can lead to a real and lasting peace.

Oppose efforts to impose solutionsAttempts by outside parties to impose a solution are counterproductive to achieving peace and should be opposed.

Suspend aid Aid to the Palestinian Authority should be suspended because of recent Palestinian actions at the United Nations Security Council and its threats to pursue action against Israel at the International Criminal Court. Palestinian intransigence should not be rewarded.

Support and work closely with Israel America should continue to work closely with Israel to pursue peace and to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship.

AIPAC’s staff and citizen activists educate decision makers about the bonds that unite the United States and Israel and how it is in America’s best interest to help ensure that the Jewish state is safe, strong and secure.

Cooperation between the two countries is advantageous for both nations. AIPAC urges all members of Congress to support Israel through foreign aid, government partnerships, joint anti-terrorism efforts and the promotion of a negotiated two-state solution—a Jewish state of Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state.

AIPAC needs to “Educate” the Conga Line about US bondage to Israel because there is nothing so important for the Conga Line on how it is in America’s best interest to help ensure that the Jewish state is safe, strong and secure.

Don't be obtuse, WiO. I didn't say AIPAC paid for those trips directly. They skirt the law by having their affiliated organizations which are listed as charities pay for the trips. However, no one is dumb enough to even try to argue these aren't AIPAC sponsored trips as AIPAC participates in them.

The same bait and switch applies to political contributions. AIPAC makes known those politicians they favor and which they don't and their well-heeled supporters then funnel or withhold funds to or from those choices.

Tax avoidance is legal, you are not obligated by law to pay more than is required.

Just as AIPAC organizing groups to LEGALLY pay for trips, where AIPAC is not paying for them is not "skirting" anything.

Negative characterizations by you and others, of things that 1000's of other groups do, legally, all the time but are not characterized by you as pejorative speaks volumes about your application of one standard to the Jews/Zionists and no standard for anyone else. This is demonstrated by the thousands and thousands of posts on this blog about Jews/zionists/aipac and the absolute silence for all others.

The same bait and switch applies to political contributions. AIPAC makes known those politicians they favor and which they don't and their well-heeled supporters then funnel or withhold funds to or from those choices.

A sweet scam to avoid direct participation.

But you know this.

Once again, only aipac and the Jews are singled out as negative in this practice by you and this blog.

Maybe if you had, over the years, gave equal time to the other 24,000 lobby groups I'd have more respect for your opinion.

In order to provide you with as much flexibility as possible, we offer the ability to pay your yearly pledge with appreciated securities. You can also make and pay a new AIPAC pledge and receive potential tax benefits by doing so. These gifts of stock may allow you to gain certain tax advantages and maximize your support of AIPAC's important work.Learn more about paying your pledge with stock.http://www.aipac.org/act/donate

The Economy is starting to get some traction, Obama's approval ratings are starting to rise (as evidenced by Rasmussen, this morning, at 51 - 47,) and, now, it looks like his ISIS strategy is going to pay off.

No, the implication of the your statement is that anybody who disagrees with:

"The Economy is starting to get some traction, Obama's approval ratings are starting to rise (as evidenced by Rasmussen, this morning, at 51 - 47,) and, now, it looks like his ISIS strategy is going to pay off."

That's an interesting response, Quirk. Did you feel like my comment was directed at you?

It could have been, you've accused me of it in the past. But that is irrelevant, one has to consider the source and past experience. My experience here is that it is your go to response in defense of Obama no matter how irrational it is.

Why did you feel that way?

See answer above.

Do you think it should have been?

Of course not. In the absence of a need for race-baiting there was no reason to bring race into the conversation at all this morning. It's simply the way you roll.

AIPAC has an affiliate called the American Israel Education Foundation that spends money on educational programs, materials and travel to promote AIPAC issues. As a 501(c)(3) organization, contributions made to the American Israel Education Foundation are tax deductible...... Under the law the AIPAC affiliate is limited in how much money it can give to political activities.Since 2000, the foundation has spent almost $5 million on congressional travel to Israel and sent congressmen on a total of 575 trips, according to Legistorm, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money and travel of legislators. The top-five most expensive trips were taken by Republicans.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.): $28,121.50

Moran, who was a House representative at the time, went on a seven-day trip to Israel with his wife, Robba, in late June 2008. The trip cost about $28,000, nearly $4,000 of which was spent on his wife’s meals, according to congressional documents submitted by Moran. The American Israel Education Foundation documentation says it spent only $700 on her.

So far this year, Moran has co-sponsored a Senate resolution stating that Israel cannot return to the 1967 borders with the Palestinians, which are the borders before the military occupation began. He also co-sponsored a resolution stating the Palestinians should stop their statehood efforts at the U.N., and opposing the inclusion of Hamas in the Palestinian unity government.

Rep. Michael Ferguson (R-N.J.): $28,121.50

Former Rep. Ferguson went on a seven-day trip to Israel with his wife, Maureen, in late June 2008, which also cost about $28,000. He did not seek re-election and left office in January 2009. A few months prior to his trip he co-sponsored a resolution stating Israel is a strategic ally of the United States and celebrating its 60th anniversary as a country.

Sen. John Barasso Sen. John Barasso (R-Wyo.): $25,433.08

Sen. Barasso left for a five-day trip to Israel with his spouse, Bobette Brown, in late November 2008. The trip cost about $25,000. So far this year Barasso has co-sponsored a Senate resolution stating Israel should not have to return to its 1967 borders, which are the borders that existed before the occupation.

Rep. Geoffrey Davis (R-Ky.): $24,626.40

In August 2007, Rep. Davis went on an eight-day trip to Israel with his wife, Pat Davis. The trip cost about $25,000. In 2009, Davis co-sponsored a resolution that supported Israel’s three-week air strike against Gaza in response to Hamas rocket attacks

Rep. Michael Pence (R-Ind.): $24,010.50

Rep. Pence and his wife, Karen, went on a seven-day trip to Israel in late June 2008, which cost about $24,000. So far this year, Pence has co-sponsored a resolution supporting Israel’s use of military action against Iran if needed to take out its nuclear weapons program. He also co-sponsored a resolution supporting Israel’s terms for a two-state solution under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which means not returning to the 1967 borders.

heck that would not even purchase a top horse a one of your so called polo events.

But the stallions they sit on are another matter. Outstanding polo horses are hard to find and horribly expensive. Each world-class rider may have dozens, the best of which may cost more than $200,000 each

WASHINGTON, March 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The US Department of Justice has been formally asked to begin regulating the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as the foreign agent of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A 392 page legal filing presented by a four person IRmep delegation in a two hour meeting with top officials of the Internal Security Section substantiated the following case for AIPAC's immediate registration:

AIPAC is a spinoff of an organization already ordered by the DOJ to register as an Israeli foreign agent. In November of 1962 the American Zionist Council was ordered by the Attorney General to begin filing disclosures as an Israeli foreign agent under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. http://www.IRmep.org/1962Order.pdf

Six weeks later, former AZC employees incorporated the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, DC, taking over the AZC's lobbying activities. http://www.IRmep.org/AIPAC.pdf AIPAC did not register as a foreign agent.

AIPAC's founder Isaiah L. Kenen was the chief information officer for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in New York and for a time duly registered in that role. http://www.IRmep.org/Kenen.pdf

The Justice Department ordered Kenen to personally re-register after he formally left the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to head up private lobbying and publicity for the Israeli government at the nonprofit American Zionist Council. Kenen never complied with the order. http://www.IRmep.org/order.pdf Espionage related FBI investigations in 1984 and 2005 reveal AIPAC's ongoing stealth foreign agency activities. Declassified FBI files released on the Internet last week reveal that in 1984 AIPAC and the Israeli Ministry of Economics were investigated for jointly obtaining and circulating classified US economic data to obtain favorable trade benefits for Israel. http://www.irmep.org/ila/economy

In 2005 Pentagon Colonel Lawrence Franklin pled guilty and two AIPAC employees were indicted for obtaining and circulating classified US national defense information to Israeli government officials allegedly in the interest of fomenting US action against Iran.

AIPAC's executive committee consists of the original member organizations of the AZC in addition to newer members. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the umbrella group of AIPAC's executive committee, is housed in the same New York office as the World Zionist Organization – American Section, a registered foreign agent that is heavily involved in illegal settlement expansion according to Israeli prosecutor Thalia Sasson.

According to Grant F. Smith, director of IRmep, the case for reregulating AIPAC as a foreign agent immediately is compelling. "AIPAC was designed to supplant the American Zionist Council as the arm of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the United States after the DOJ ordered the AZC to register as a foreign agent. As such, Americans should have full public access to biannual FARA registrations detailing AIPAC's publicity campaigns, lobbying expenditures, funding flows, activities of its offices in Israel and internal consultations with its foreign principals - particularly over such controversial issues as illegal settlements and US foreign aid."

Six weeks later, former AZC employees incorporated the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, DC, taking over the AZC's lobbying activities. http://www.IRmep.org/AIPAC.pdf AIPAC did not register as a foreign agent.

Military officials say they face a challenge in convincing Iraqi leaders to release their best and most experienced units from the defense of Baghdad and commit them to the offensive. Senior U.S. officials have told Iraqi counterparts that the only way to ultimately ensure the safety of the capital is to push Islamic State forces out of Mosul and other key areas they continue to control.

“Most of the best Iraqi units are in Baghdad, and that is the thing we have to shake them free of,” said a senior military officer. “They are reluctant to let their best units leave.”

Last year, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raised the possibility in testimony before Congress that U.S. troops might need to accompany Iraqi forces during the Mosul fight to help call in airstrikes. Gen. Austin said he had made no decision but said he may request that the White House send in U.S. advisers alongside the Iraqi divisions.

Even if they do it there are a lot of hostile Sunni's kicking about with dreams of a Caliphate. But heck, rufus thinks that those guys are just like US needing R&R to keep on keeping on. Rose colored Vietnamese glasses firmly on nose.

All combat troops need R&R, Ash.The Daesh are not 'Supermen', they are not exempt from the mental stresses of combat.

It has nothing to do with Vietnam, it has to do with the requirements of homo-sapiens to function effectively.If Daesh does not provide their troops with R&R, that is a 'good thing', for Iraq.

As for US troops going with the Iraqi, that mission seems to have been tasked to the Canadians.

U.S. commanders have, in the past, defended the policy of allowing Iraqi and Kurdish fighters to suggest targets, which are then checked out by coalition surveillance drones — or aircraft, such as Canada’s CP-140 Auroras.

Canada’s commander of special forces, who says his troops have directed air strikes on 13 occasions, says their work gives the coalition confidence that the targets are legitimate.

Brig.-Gen. Mike Rouleau also said that confidence made the process faster and safer not only for Iraqi and Kurdish troops, but civilians as well.

Foreign policy expert Roland Paris of the University of Ottawa said it’s fascinating that Canada is potentially further ahead of the U.S. when it comes to prosecuting this aspect of the war.

“The Americans could be doing it covertly. You just don’t know what you’re not being told,” said Paris, who pointed out that no other allies, including Britain, France and Australia, have acknowledged carrying out similar front-line duties.

Ash, that is the second time that you've referenced "rose colored Vietnamese glasses." I think we all understand that you are singularly unqualified to speak of such things.

I said from the git-go that the Mosul operation would be ugly as a plumber's crack. The Iraqi Army might be the worst standing army in the world.

One of the most difficult things will be convincing the Iraqis of the need to finish the job once they've taken the City Center.

And, where the Americans would most likely wrap the deal up in a week or two, the Iraqis could easily take a month, or more.

But, all that said, the campaign will be a win ( a very ugly win, but a win.) Firepower (especially airpower,) and numbers will ultimately carry the day. The American Handlers Will be too tired to celebrate.

I'm sure the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan would have a good laugh at American military need for R&R. While the American boys needed their fun in Hanoi the Viet Cong did not. Who won? .Hence the "Rose Colored Glasses" manufactured in Vietnam. I'm surprised you guys are still sporting them to this day.If the Iraqis do not take and hold Mosul and govern it as part of Iraq how can you claim it a "win"?

See, Quirk, just like in Vietnam Americans can kill the vermin and leave the 'country' intact. In Vietnam that damn jungle posed a problem so they defoliant. In Iraq they use drones. Ya kill enough of them you win. I guess with these Vietnamese manufactured rose colored glasses that rufus sports if you kill enough IS folk in Iraq they'll be gone and those remaining will throw flowers upon anything American - just like in Vietnam!

Your experience with Vietnam and the military seem to be limited to your viewing of Apocalypse Now.Your attitude towards the VC and NVA, right out of Charlie Sheen's lines.

Fictional, that's what that is.

The object is not to have the people of the conflict area "Love US", because they never will.They do not in Japan or Germany.The objective is to stabilize the political sphere, so that US interests are served.In Vietnam, there never were any real US Interests involved, other than expanding the Military Industrial Complex's share of the pie.

The danger in the Middle East, that the US get drawn into conflicts that do not advnce or sustain our "National Interest".

There is only one 'National Election' in the US, that is for the Presidency. He/she and the VP, the only elected officials that represent all off US, by design. What the President considers the 'National Interest', is the 'National Interest'.How to best advance those interests, defend those interests, a matter of discussion.

In this case I think the President has it right, he has charted a low cost, local centric program that is working.In Vietnam we had their President removed, in a sponsored coup de etat, that was a drastic error.In Iran we did the same, another drastic error.

We should allow the locals to 'work it out', with as little assistance as possible.

There are much greater levels of involvement that could be undertaken.Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson advocates for some them.Intense aerial bombing, he calls it "Carpet Bombing" and the insertion of US combat troops.

Supplying those that are doing the grunt work, on the ground, with air support, is about "as little assistance as possible.", as is possible.

Picking sides in one of the many fights in the region and supplying sir support is not "as little assistance as possible". We could restrict our involvement to simply maintaining defensive positions or just to humanitarian aide. Encouraging and training Shite Iraqis and backing them with air support while they advance on, say, Mosul is not a minimal involvement. If, as the WSJ article suggests, 'we'll do what-ever it takes' and 'boots on the ground if necessary' in taking Mosul is also not minimal involvement.

The North Vietnamese has "Base Camps" throughout Cambodia and Laos where there troops would retire to, for R&R.

In the late 1960's, as the free world forces extended their operations into the enemy base areas in South Vietnam, the enemy regular forces expanded the bases and depots across the borders in Cambodia and Laos. (,See Map 14, inset) . Since for political reasons these base areas were inviolate, they provided sanctuaries to which the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong units could retire periodically from combat in South Vietnam, train and refit, and return to combat.

Free world forces called these sanctuaries base areas, since they provided not only supply and maintenance facilities but also training and maneuver areas, classrooms, headquarters, and even housing for families of soldiers.

There are according to ... Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics estimated the Israeli Jewish population was 6,218,100 as of December 2014 (74.9% of the total population if East Jerusalem and Golan Arab population are counted in).

Reality goes even further, in the eposure of our "O"rdure's lies.

Today over 2,500,000 Mizrahi Jews,[54] and Sephardic Jews live in Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Jews

The concerns that so many naysayers have for the 'schedule' in Iraq is humorous, to say the least.

As Rufus says, what difference does it make, to US how long the Iraqi take to bring the fight to Mosul?It is their country, their war, the US and Coalition is just assisting them, in a low cost, small footprint, method.

To a point, Ash, but not totally.Our draft dodger, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, has gone on and on about the 'failures' in Iraq. Not referencing Rufus prediction, most of the time. He does the same about Syria. Still wanting to insert US troops into the conflict, one assumes.

You and Legionnaire Q wish the US was not involved at all. Advocating that any effort is wasted effort, or so it would seem.

Myself, while it would be pleasant to wash our hands of the whole affair, the fact that 22% of our oil comes from that region makes walking away unpractical. The US has assumed the role of guardian of the global economy, for better or worse, and so some level of engagement is going to be in the cards.

The path forward, the path that we are on, it is the least objectionable of the possible tracks we could be on.Listen to "Draft Dodger" Peterson when he calls for 'Carpet Bombing' and US boots on the ground.McCain, Graham and the rest of the Chicken Hawks in DC seem to echo his advocacy.

I see there is an article in WaPo talking about Orwellian America. Unfortunately, I'm past my limit for the free 20 (or is it 10 now) monthly articles. However, when I google Orwellian America there seems to be widespread recognition of the term with articles from sources ranging from Salon and Jaun Cole to Globalresearch.com, etc.

I said I would wait before commenting on Obama's SOTU message until we see the details. I was optimistic about the pre-SOTU speculation on the proposal to pay for community college even though major questions on the detail remained on how effective it would be if it ever got passed.

IMO, there is a place for the government in making a post high school education available to everyone that wants it at the lowest cost possible (preferably for free). This would be a boon for the people involved especially those with limited resources and it would aid the economy and help reduce the current expanding inequality in the country. IMO.

Therefore, I was disappointed to hear that the administration is considering taxing future 529 plans, an action whose direction is directly opposite the one I thought Obama was moving in.

Meanwhile, the White House says that revenue brought in from taxing gains in 529 plans would go toward expanding other higher education tax breaks, such as the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which is available to families earning up to $180,000. So it seems like the middle class makes out just fine in this deal.

He's just redistributing some of the tax breaks downward. His is a Progressive agenda, after all.

What Obama is doing is punishing those who can actually save for college. The 529's are set up like a Roth Ira and the annual contributions are limited. The average currently held in a 529 account is less than $20k.

There is no excuse for making it harder for people to get an education, none, zip, nada.

The World is seeing the real Netanyahu, an uncouth lying thuggish fat ass low life.

A move he failed to coordinate with the administration — began to seep through the diplomatic cracks on Friday, with officials telling Haaretz the Israeli leader had “spat” in President Barack Obama’s face.

“We thought we’ve seen everything,” the newspaper quoted an unnamed senior US official as saying. “But Bibi managed to surprise even us.

“There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” he said.

Read more: Netanyahu 'spat in our face,' White House officials said to say | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-spat-in-our-face-white-house-officials-say/#ixzz3Pg4yfPSr Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Yet wherever the left holds sway, Israel is seen through jaundiced eyes. There has been an unprecedented moral inversion, illustrating the power of a noxious idea to seep from the ideological fringe to the mainstream.

The United States is not yet down to one pro-Israel party. But the seepage among Democrats continues. At the 2012 Democratic convention, a fight erupted over the deletion from the party’s platform of standard language acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. It took an order from the White House to restore the pro-Israel clause, and even then it had to be gaveled through over the vocal opposition of half the convention delegates.

Not long ago, such a hostile gesture would have been unthinkable. Now, with each new poll confirming Democratic chilliness toward the Jewish state Democrats once loved, can it be anything but a precursor of worse to come?- Jeff Jacoby

The GOP will lose the Presidency in 2016.They could easily lose their newly won majority in the Senate. The number of GOP seats that are up for grabs is substantially higher than the Dems have at risk.

Bibi is playing a losing hand, he does not have the Facts, he does not have the Law, so he is pounding Sand.

A move he failed to coordinate with the administration — began to seep through the diplomatic cracks on Friday, with officials telling Haaretz the Israeli leader had “spat” in President Barack Obama’s face.

“We thought we’ve seen everything,” the newspaper quoted an unnamed senior US official as saying. “But Bibi managed to surprise even us.

“There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” he said.

Interesting use of invectives Deuce...

Tell us how you really feel..

But the truth?

1. The Speaker of the House INVITED the Prime Minister of Israel.2. The Whitehouse KNEW for almost 9 days before it went public that he was invited.3. Obama didn't have time to meet with Bibi but has time for YOUTUBE celebraties.

Obama is pissed that Israel will not agree to be silent in the shadow of Obama when it comes to sanctions against Iran.

Of course the so called sanctions do NOT go into effect IF Iran and and Obama reach a deal, the sanctions would only be put into USE AFTER the talks broke down. So who is Obama protecting and why?

Elections has consequences as Obama LOVES to lecture. And America has spoken. For the 1st time in 54 years both houses went to the GOP...Are you listening Obama?

AND Bibi told Obama that Israel will not allow Obama to blackmail it any longer.. Israel has told Obama, "do what you want in the UN about Palestine" Your help is killing us.

O'bozo made time for an interview with a female black entertainer last name of Green, who wears green lipstick, and takes baths in a tub full of milk and cereal, and is famous for posing with a condom up her nose, but couldn't get anyone to the March in Paris or meet with Bibi.

This is a telling sign of the mindset of our beloved President O'bozo.

>>>All of this means that the Kurds, who enjoy the unenviable status of the world’s largest nation without a state, now find themselves on the verge of establishing their first viable national homeland — nearly a century after the Great Powers carved up the post-World War I Ottoman Empire into the countries of today’s Middle East, ultimately leaving the Kurds out in the cold. (The Soviet Union sponsored the creation of a Kurdish republic in Iran in 1946, but it quickly collapsed when the Soviets withdrew their support.)

“An independent Kurdistan is something that all Kurds dream of,” retiree Ramzi Maaroof, 65, told me as we chatted in the Erbil bazaar. “I’ve been waiting all my life to see it.”

“An independent Kurdistan is something that all Kurds dream of,” retiree Ramzi Maaroof, 65, told me as we chatted in the Erbil bazaar. “I’ve been waiting all my life to see it.”

If the dream finally becomes a reality, there is one nation in particular that the Kurds will have to thank for it: the United States. Even though U.S. policy toward the Kurds has often been subordinated to the same spirit of realpolitik that defines so many of Washington’s policies in the region, today’s Iraqi Kurdistan traces its origins to two key events: the establishment of a no-fly zone over the region after the Allied victory over Saddam in 1991, and the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator in the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. As a result, Kurds tend to be overwhelmingly pro-American — to an extent that comes as quite a jolt to anyone who’s spent time in other parts of the Middle East.<<<

Christian CarylThe World’s Next Country

The Kurds are on the verge of getting a homeland of their own. If they do, the Middle East will never be the same.

Are you headed over there to assist in the 'Clit Clipping' that is pervasive throughout Kurdistan, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson?Put your boots on that ground, or do you still want to send your betters to fulfill your fantasies?

By claiming to be "Western" the Zionists are held to the higher standard that we in the civilized world embrace.The Zionists now find themselves in a position similar to the Afrikaners, in South Africa.

Descendents of colonists that refused to accommodate or compromise with the native peoples and so were never welcomed by the native peoples of Africa.

When the liberals of the West came to understand what the Afrikaners were doing, that they had,rejected the cultural norms of the "West", a campaign of financial boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions did the Afrikaners in.

Israel, being an 'indispensable ally' has to behave like on of us, a nation of civilized Westerners and not, as the President of Israel said, a sick society.

“It is time to honestly admit that Israeli society is ill – and it is our duty to treat this disease,”“The tension between Jews and Arabs within the State of Israel has risen to record heights, and the relationship between all parties has reached a new low,” he said. “We have all witnessed the shocking sequence of incidents and violence taking place by both sides. The epidemic of violence is not limited to one sector or another, it permeates every area and doesn’t skip any arena. There is violence in soccer stadiums as well as in the academia. There is violence in the social media and in everyday discourse, in hospitals and in schools.”

Before you start betting, you probably should do a little reading and find out who carries the weight amongst the Kurds and what they are looking for their future to be. It would help if you understood the difference between a nation and a state.

Would you still have US troops die to protect those 'Clit Clipping' Kurds?

The discovery of widespread FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan suggests the assumption to be incorrect that FGM is primarily an African phenomenon with only marginal occurrence in the eastern Islamic world. FGM is practiced at a rate of nearly 60 percent by Iraqi Kurds, then how prevalent is the practice in neighboring Syria where living conditions and cultural and religious practices are comparable?

MONROVIA (Reuters) - Liberia, once the epicenter of West Africa's deadly Ebola epidemic, has just five remaining confirmed cases of the disease, a senior health official said on Friday, highlighting the country's success in halting new infections.

Preparations include selecting and training military units for the planned assault and cutting supply lines to Islamic State fighters, General Lloyd Austin, head of the U.S. military's Central Command, told the Journal.

Mosul is the largest city in a self-declared Islamic State caliphate straddling the border between northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

A senior Iraqi official told Reuters in November that Mosul was the focus of government efforts to defeat Islamic State, because of the city's size and symbolic status.

The U.S.-led forces have been conducting air strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria, including 16 since Wednesday that were centered on Mosul.

The Journal quoted Austin as saying that Iraqi forces must be ready before the offensive could begin.

"If we did things alone or with some of the other allies on the ground, it could move faster," he told the newspaper. "But the Iraqis have to do this themselves."

I mean, really, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, you were so incensed when four of US died in Benghazi ...How many would have to die before you felt the same way about Kurdistan as you do about Benghazi?

Would you feel the same way if four of US died in Iraq, or when the body count reached forty or four hundred?We lost over 4,000 the last time we invaded and occupied Iraq, how many US deaths would you find acceptable in the next round ?

But you see, rat-o, I didn't advocate the 'invasion' of Iraq. Your own words betray you. I do think I may have said once I'd carpet bomb the whole goddamned place than put American troops back in there.

Once, I was playing around with the idea of on humanitarian grounds putting some US troops in Syria to keep the warring parties apart but was taken to wood shed for the mere thought of trying to save some hundreds of thousands of human lives by Quirk, so I immediately desisted.

Quirk may be mostly right on his anti-humanitarian concerns. There are a lot of places that could use a humanitarian intervention. Nigeria comes to mind immediately, another country richly deserving of being split up. But what the hell, let them all kill each other. I would definitely begin supporting the Christian portion of Nigeria with arms and such if I were Boss.

Yup, on long term national interest grounds I would support the Kurdish desire for an independent state. Whether some US and NATO troops would be required to help secure the borders is a question to which I don't know the answer. Other means might suffice.

Your 'rat doctrine' puts US air personnel at risk. And so far has been totally ineffective.

You claim to have had a good old time leading a death squad (but I didn't kill anyone myself !) in Central America so I don't your criticisms seriously.

Additionally you never manage to rise to the basic ethical position of financially supporting your own children.

So, go fuck yourself. Just don't fuck anyone else, lest a pregnancy ensue, and another hapless abandoned child be brought into the world.

I don't think I am a moral absolutist though what that would have to do with intervening in some warring state in the ME I haven't a clue. And just to be clear, my objections to US intervention in other countries are related to military interventions not humanitarian interventions, and by that I mean food, medicine, clothing, etc, not the euphemistic 'humanitarian interventions' we invent as excuse for military intervention.

My objection to US intervention in the ME (or anywhere) is based not on lack of charity but rather on pragmatism. We have simply proven ourselves incompetent in our attempts to do so. All one has to do is look at US interventions over the past couple decades to see the effects of that intervention. Although the facts are obvious, you apparently remain confused.

Wherever we go we end up 'burning the town to save it'. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and now Iraq again. Wherever we have gone death and destruction follow all at a high price. Of the people we have gone to save, hundreds of thousands killed, millions turned into refugees, towns and infrastructure destroyed, $trillions wasted, the governments we leave behind as corrupt and incompetent as the ones they replaced. Today, we brag about 'and not one American killed' but we don't talk about the destruction we leave behind. When IS is finally kicked out of Kobane all that will be left is a rubble heap, it already is, yet we will brag that it was a great victory. The 200,000 refugees who fled will be left to pound sand in some refugee camp in Turkey. Look for the same to happen in Mosul when that action begins.

Quirk's anti-humanitarian views? Good lord, you dolt. If you had an ounce of empathy and could think you would realize the opportunity costs lost through these interventions, you would realize what a few $trillion could do to improve the lives of people around the world rather than to destroy them. Look at the small cost and effectiveness of our intervention during the Ebola crisis in Africa. We should stick to the things we are good at.

US billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a key financial backer of the Republican party, also owns the free Israeli daily Yisrael Hayom, a mouthpiece for Mr Netanyahu.

...

Israeli analysts warned that Mr Netanyahu was endangering the country’s close ties with the US.

“In close to six years as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu harmed, weakened and finally destroyed the interpersonal channel [with the US president] and created an unprecedented rift in the relations between president and prime minister,” wrote Alon Pinkas, who served as Israel’s consul-general in New York. “But Binyamin Netanyahu, despite his attempts to appear as such, is not the Republican senator from West Jerusalem. He is the prime minister of Israel.”

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.